Talk:Pale King
Does he really count as a villain? He's flawed, sure, but he was never quite depicted as tyrannical or evil in the game at all. His worst actions were creating the vessels, and that was just in a desperate attempt to contain the infection. Besides, he was creating them, as opposed to the Soul Masters who were getting their soul to experiment with by killing bugs. In the end, he even died, saying "No cost too great", so he was willing to sacrifice everything to try to save the kingdom. That doesn't really sound like a tyrannical ruler, putting his kingdom and everything else before himself. Even if the plan didn't end up working, he died so its not like he just ignored the failure of the Radiance's containment. The bugs of Hallownest willingly worshipped him, and he didn't even force the dreamers to help contain the Radiance. The dreamers did so willingly, of their own volition (though Herra did demand a bargain in the form of a child in return). Not even the Hollow Knight itself was forced into it's role. It could be said that it didn't have a choice in the matter, which I would say is valid, but it didn't resist its role at all. Even though it was imperfect, not truly hollow, it still tried its best to not think or feel so it could contain the Radiance. He's not even emotionless or cold. He wasn't trying to prevent the fall of Hallownest simply though some cold logical desire to sustain the kingdom, he wanted the best for his people, No cost too great. He shared some tender moments with the Hollow Knight, like what you see at the end of the Path of Pain, which is implied to possibly have caused to Hollow Knight to become impure. This is a big mistake on the Pale King's part, yes, but it's not from a place of villainy but because he felt a sense of fatherhood with it. He cared about the Hollow Knight, its understandable he shared some moments with it. His flaw in this case was he himself was too emotionally attached to it. So basically, the Pale King himself doesn't cause the problems in the game. His actions may not have always been ethical, but that was because he was willing to do anything in order to save his people. He's more of a flawed hero than a villain at all. Geicosuave (talk) 11:50, October 16, 2018 (UTC) The Usurper classification is straight up incorrect, heck half of the entire page is completely wrong. The civilizations of the World of Hollow Knight only exist due to Gods, in this case the Pale King, pushing back the influence of the Radiance and in doing so allowing the bugs under their domain to become sentient and form their own societies. The Pale King is a literal god when compared to the bugs. His motivation isn't only to ensure his kingdom is immortal, it's to ensure that the bugs will be able to survive as actual people instead of mindless beasts under the Radiance's influence. He doesn't even serve as the role of an antagonist in the game, he's already long dead by the time the Knight wakes up and leaves the void. YoggleWaggle (talk) 05:27, March 16, 2019 (UTC) I do agree with both of your views that the Pale King was attempting to do the best for his kingdom and his people, and thus, he is more of an anti-villain than a real villain. However, it should be said that his actions were precisely the reason the Radiance became the villain it is in-game. By expanding the minds of the bugs, the Pale King subverted many of the Radiance's subjects to worship him instead. Also, while this action may seem benevolent in the view of the bugs, we can't really say that the Pale King did these actions because he had a moral conscience. In the Hollow Knight Wiki, the Pale King page states this: "In a lore tablet in White Palace it is stated that the Pale King did this so those bugs would devote themselves to him". So technically, he is an usurper: in order to fulfill his own selfish interests (being worshipped as a god and have servants), he decided to grant sapience to the bugkind, essentially disrupting the natural order set by the Radiance. It's basically two evil gods competing for worshippers: one making himself look good in front of his followers, and the other trying to brute-force the issue of loosing followers. I would say to remove some of the "crimes" listed in the page that do not have good evidence. But we should keep this article because he is a self-interested, ambitious individual who did all these good things just to maintain his authority. A villain that does heroic things for his own goals is still a villain. Update: On second thought, that would make him an anti-hero, but given the mad scientist experiments that he has done, I guess he could be catagorized as an anti-villain. So essentially, I would vote to remove some of the crimes and make sure to properly show that he is an anti-villain, but keep the article. Chokwerman (talk) 02:07, March 31, 2019 (UTC)